+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel...

Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel...

Date post: 20-Mar-2021
Category:
Upload: others
View: 1 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
18
Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Telephone: 416-392-4697 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9 Fax: 416-696-4307 Email: [email protected] Website: www.toronto.ca/tlab DECISION AND ORDER Decision Issue Date Monday, March 23, 2020 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act") Appellant(s): JEREMY VIDAL Applicant: VICTOR HIPOLITO Property Address/Description: 387 GLENHOLME AVE Committee of Adjustment Case File: 19 179886 STE 12 MV (A0702/19TEY) TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Hearing date: Friday, February 07, 2020 DECISION DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA APPEARANCES NAME ROLE REPRESENTATIVE VICTOR HIPOLITO APPLICANT TJ CIECURA EXPERT WITNESS JEREMY VIDAL APPELLANT/OWNER RUSSELL D CHEESEMAN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Jeremy Vidal is the owner of 387 Glenholme Ave, located in Ward 12 (St. Paul’s), of the City of Toronto (City). He applied to the Committee of Adjustment (COA), to construct a new three-storey duplex at the Subject Site, with rear first, second, and third storey decks. The COA heard the application on September 26, 2019, and refused it in its entirety. The Appellant appealed the Decision to the Toronto Local Appeal body (TLAB) on October 8, 2019, which scheduled a Hearing on February 6, 2020. 1 of 7
Transcript
Page 1: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Telephone: 416-392-4697 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9 Fax: 416-696-4307

Email: [email protected] Website: www.toronto.ca/tlab

DECISION AND ORDER Decision Issue Date Monday, March 23, 2020

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s): JEREMY VIDAL

Applicant: VICTOR HIPOLITO

Property Address/Description: 387 GLENHOLME AVE

Committee of Adjustment Case File: 19 179886 STE 12 MV (A0702/19TEY)

TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing date: Friday, February 07, 2020

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA

APPEARANCES NAME ROLE REPRESENTATIVE

VICTOR HIPOLITO APPLICANT

TJ CIECURA EXPERT WITNESS

JEREMY VIDAL APPELLANT/OWNER RUSSELL D CHEESEMAN

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Jeremy Vidal is the owner of 387 Glenholme Ave, located in Ward 12 (St. Paul’s), of the City of Toronto (City). He applied to the Committee of Adjustment (COA), to construct a new three-storey duplex at the Subject Site, with rear first, second, and third storey decks.

The COA heard the application on September 26, 2019, and refused it in its entirety. The Appellant appealed the Decision to the Toronto Local Appeal body (TLAB) on October 8, 2019, which scheduled a Hearing on February 6, 2020.

1 of 7

Page 2: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

MATTERS IN ISSUE

REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW: 1. Chapter 10.80.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013The maximum permitted floor space index of a detached dwelling is 0.8 times the areaof the lot (334.3 m2).The three-storey detached duplex will have a floor space index of 0.84 times the area ofthe lot (351.31 m2).

2. Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3), By-law 569-2013The minimum required side yard setback of a duplex is 1.8 m.The three-storey detached duplex will be located 0.76 m from the south side lot line.

JURISDICTION Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

Minor Variance – S. 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and• are minor.

EVIDENCE At the Hearing held on February 7, 2020, the Appellant , Mr. Vidal, was represented by Mr. Russell Cheeseman, a lawyer, and Mr. T.J.Cieciura, a land use planner. There were no other Parties, nor Participants involved in this Hearing. Mr. Cieciura was sworn in, and recognized as an Expert Witness in the area of land use planning. He said that the neighbourhood chosen by him was bounded by Rogers Road on the south, Dufferin Street on the west, east of Vaughan Road, and south of Eglinton Avenue. He added that the Neighbourhood chosen by him, approximately overlapped with "Oakwood Village". The Subject Property is currently occupied by a single detached, two storey residential dwelling, with a garage at the rear of the property. The proposal is to construct a new three storey duplex with rear first, second, and third storey decks, with parking space, at the rear of the property.

2 of 7

Page 3: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

Speaking to the property itself, Mr. Cieciura added that the subject lot is a regular rectangular shape, with a 10.07m frontage and 41.47m in depth, and that the total lot area of the lot is 417.88 square metre. Describing the community surrounding the Subject Property, Mr. Cieciura said that Glenholme Avenue runs north and south, from Vaughan Road to St. Clair Avenue W., and that the Subject Property is located on Glenholme Avenue between Hanson Road and Jesmond Avenue. The residential buildings in this neighbourhood are predominantly single detached houses, which co-exist with semi-detached dwellings, duplexes and triplexes. The buildings mostly appear to be one or two storeys in height. He added that a defining characteristic of the neighbourhood is that many dwellings have rear detached garages, mostly accessed from laneways, and driveways down the side of the dwelling or side streets. The Subject Property is in the “Neighbourhoods” designation of the Official Plan, and is currently zoned "R2" under the former City of Toronto Zoning Bylaw 1-83, as amended by 3623-97. The Subject Property is zoned as "RM(f12.0; u2; d0.8)(x.252)" Residential under Citywide Zoning By-law 569- 2013, which permits a floor area 0.8 times the lot area. Mr. Cieciura discussed how the proposal is consistent with the higher level Provincial Policies, beginning with Provincial Policy Statement (2014). He said that the proposal is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighbourhood, makes efficient use of land, and thereby contributes to the vitality and regeneration of the community, making it compatible with the PPS (2014). He then discussed how the proposal is consistent with Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, because it is within a settlement area, which specifically achieves the stated goal of better use of land, and infrastructure for directing growth. Mr. Cieciura then spoke to how the proposal maintained the general purpose, and intent of the Official Plan (OP). He spoke to the relevance of Policies 2.3.1, 3.1.2, 3.4, and 4.1.5 of the Official Plan. He said Policy 2.3.1.1 of the OP holds neighbourhoods to be physically stable areas, where development will be consistent with, respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns. He said that duplexes are an existing dwelling type within this neighbourhood., and that the proposed dwelling respects, and reinforces the existing physical character of buildings, and streetscapes in this area. He then discussed how Policy 3.1.2.1 deals with new development and its relationship to the existing context, and said that the proposed development will be located, and organized to fit with its existing and/or planned context. The proposed duplex is of a compatible height, size and massing, as other dwellings in the neighbourhood, and fits within its existing and planned context. He asserted that the dwelling will not have a significant impact on the overall scale of the built form on the lot , and does not adversely impact abutting properties, thereby satisfying Policies 3.1.2.3 (a) and (b). He pointed out there are no height related variance requests in this proposal, and concluded that Sections (c)- (f) of Policy 3.1.2.1 are not relevant.

While discussing Policy 3.4 of the OP, Mr. Cieciura stated that while there are currently no trees on the property, the owner was prepared to utilize the place provided in the rear to “include a landscape strip, resulting in a typical rear yard condition”.

3 of 7

Page 4: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

Mr. Caesura then discussed the criteria listed in Section 4.1.5, and demonstrated how the proposal complied with the listed criteria. According to him, Criterion (a) does not apply, because no change is proposed to the street, shape or size of the lot. He opined that the other criteria listed, from (b) to (e ) are satisfied, because the height, massing, scale, dwelling type, prevailing setbacks of buildings, and setbacks of the proposed duplex, are all compatible with the abutting properties. Based on this evidence, and examples of other COA decisions from the neighbourhood, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposal was consistent with the intention of the Official Plan. Mr. Cieciura then discussed how the proposal was consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. Discussing the variance respecting the Floor Space Index (FSI), Mr. Cieiciura said that the zoning restriction on a maximum FSI is to prevent the construction of huge buildings, inappropriate for size of the plot . He added that the performance standard for FSI, in conjunction with the setbacks, helps maintain appropriate amenity area on the lot, while providing space for storm water infiltration, and open space. He emphasized how deep the lot is at 41.47m in depth, and concluded that the new dwelling would have adequate rear yard amenity area, and sufficient space for storm water infiltration, and added that his conclusion about the adequacy of space was buttressed by the lack of requests for rear yard, and front yard setback variances associated with the proposal Mr. Cieciura said that the increase of 0.04 x the lot area, between what is requested, and what is of right, results in an increase of 17.01sq m (183 sq. ft.) in area, greater then what is permitted. He said that the 17.01 sq. m will be distributed between the three floors, and asserted that this addition would have little to no impact on the massing of the dwelling. . Mr. Cieciura then discussed the variance respecting the Minimum Side Yard Setback. He said that the current driveway located along the Northern Property Line is 2.90m in width, which allows vehicle access to the rear of the property, and that the North Side Yard Setback is 1.1m greater than the minimum requirement of 1.8m. The intent and purpose of the Side Yard Setback requirement is to provide access to the rear, as well as space for storm water infiltration. He pointed out that the existing dwelling has a setback of 0.42m, and if approved, the proposed setback will be 0.76m, which improves space for access and maintenance Based on this, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposed dwelling will improve the southern side yard setback condition, from what currently exists on the property. Based on this discussion, he concluded that the requested variances respected the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Cieciura then discussed how the proposal was desirable for the appropriate development of the land. He said that the proposal complied with the test of appropriate development through a more “efficient” use of the land, which he linked to three different factors- namely the development’s being consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood, the lack of adverse impact on the abutting neighbours, and no reduction in greenery, vegetation, or soft landscaping. Lastly, Mr. Cieciura discussed how the proposal was consistent with the test of being minor in nature. He said that the demonstrable lack of adverse impact on neighbouring properties, coupled with the” very modest quantum of variance”, meant that the resulting

4 of 7

Page 5: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

impact would be no different than what would be achieved if the proposal complied with the By-Laws, and concluded that the proposal met the test of being minor. Based on this evidence, Mr. Cieciura concluded that the proposal satisfied all the four tests, and recommended that it be approved. When asked about any recommended conditions to be imposed if the proposal were approved, both Mr. Cieciura and Mr. Cheeseman, stated that they had no objections to standard conditions being imposed. I stated that the standard conditions, to be imposed on the proposal, if it were approved, are:

• The proposal will be built in substantial conformity with the submitted Plans andElevations, prepared by Ambient Designs Ltd., Design and Building Consultants,1115 College Street, Toronto, ON M6H 1B5, dated June 24, 2019.

• Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu ofplanting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sitesinvolved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree

Mr. Cheeseman reiterated his agreement with the conditions. I thanked Mr. Cieciura, and Mr. Cheeseman for the presentation, and reserved my Decision.

ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS I find that proposal respecting 387 Glenholme Ave., is a straightforward case- the

requested variances respecting FSI, and the sideyard setback are not out of the ordinary, there is no opposition from the neighbours, and the Appellants provided relevant and comprehensive evidence at the Hearing.

While the questions raised by the proposal do not rise to provincial significance, I agree with Mr. Cieciura that the proposal is compliant with the PPS (2014) and Growth Plan ( 2019), by virtue of its making efficient use of the available land, and being consistent with what exists in the community.

The proposal is consistent with Policies 2.3.1, 3.1.2, and 4.1.5 of the OP, by virtue it is consistent with the ongoing evolution of the community, compatibility with what already exists in the immediate community, and lack of creation of any new, hitherto not experienced impacts on the streetscape. I conclude that the proposal is consistent with the OP.

I find that the proposal is consistent with the intention, and purpose of the Zoning By-Law 569-2013, because the proposal’s demonstrated ability to fulfill the requisite performance standards- the house to be built at the Subject Site will not result in overdevelopment of the Site, and will improve the southern side yard setback condition, from what currently exists on the property.

The proposal satisfies the test of appropriate development, because of its demonstrable efficient use of land, lack of impact on the neighbours, and the streetscape. Lastly, the proposal satisfies the test of minor because there are no demonstrable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Given that the proposal satisfies the higher level Provincial Policies, and the four statutory tests under Section 45.1 of the Planning Act, I allow the Appeal respecting 387 Glenholme, and set aside the earlier decision made by the COA.

5 of 7

Page 6: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

The standard conditions, which require the Appellant to construct in substantial conformity with the submitted Plans and Elevations, and a requirement that the Appellant provide payment, in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance, abutting each of the sites involved in the application, are imposed on the proposal.

DECISION AND ORDER 1. The Appeal respecting 387 Glenholme Ave is allowed, and the decision of the

Committee of Adjustment dated September 26, 2019,.is set aside.

2. The following variances are approved:

1. Chapter 10.80.40.40.(1)(A), By-law 569-2013The maximum permitted floor space index of a detached dwelling is 0.8 times the areaof the lot (334.3 m2).The three-storey detached duplex will have a floor space index of 0.84 times the area ofthe lot (351.31 m2).

2. Chapter 10.80.40.70.(3), By-law 569-2013The minimum required side yard setback of a duplex is 1.8 m.The three-storey detached duplex will be located 0.76 m from the south side lot line.

3. No other variances are approved.

4. The following conditions are imposed on the approval

a) The proposal will be built in substantial conformity with the Plans and Elevations,submitted to the Committee of Adjustment, prepared by Ambient Designs Ltd.,Design and Building Consultants, 1115 College Street, Toronto, ON, dated June24, 2019.

b) Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu ofplanting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sitesinvolved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree

So orders the Toronto Local Appeal Body

6 of 7

Page 7: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB

XS. GopikrishnaPanel Chair, Toronto Local Appeal Body

7 of 7

Page 8: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to
Page 9: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

SITE PLAN

1:200M

Page 10: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

SITE STATISTICS

NTS

Page 11: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

BASEMENT FL. PLAN

1:75M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 12: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

1:75M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 13: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

1:75M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 14: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

1:75M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 15: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

WEST ELEVATION

1:50 M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 16: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

SOUTH ELEVATION

1:75 M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 17: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

EAST ELEVATION

1:50 M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA

Page 18: Decision and Order - City of Toronto · 2020. 6. 5. · Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: S. GOPIKRISHNA TLAB Case File Number: 19 233603 S45 12 TLAB Speaking to

NORTH ELEVATION

1:75 M

DATED:

PROJECT NAME

DRAWN BY:

JUN. 17, 2019

M.R.SHEET NO.

DWG. NAME:

PROJECT NO. SCALE:A19105

BCIN: 29659

1 ISSUED FOR CofA


Recommended